Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12
review-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-05-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-05-11
Requested 2022-04-27
Authors Hendrik Brockhaus , Hans Aschauer , Mike Ounsworth , John Gray
I-D last updated 2022-05-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/v27X7uDX89t_1_CtUsEdOpxjJcY
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-05-06
review-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-05-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2022-05-06
IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Ready with nits.

This document updates RFC 4210 describing the conventions for using concrete
cryptographic algorithms with the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP), which
is used to enroll and further manage the lifecycle of X.509 certificates. Its
reading requires expertise and familiarity with previously published documents.
The document is ready. I pointed to a few nits, most of them improvements on
readability and orientation.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. It would be useful to provide references for terms at first occurrence. For
example Section 2 directly mentions OOBCertHash, CertStatus, Challenge,
PBMParameter, DHBMParameter, etc. without providing a reference.

2. Section 2.2 - provide reference for X.509 at first occurrence (probably
[RFC4210])

3. For clarity and in order to avoid confusions it would be useful to expand MAC

4. For clarity it would be useful to position Table 3 to start at top of the
page to avoid split at printing